Democrats could pass tax cuts for the middle class and allow those for the wealthy to expire

[Winterblues]

Republicans are not in any real position to stop it if Democrats really wanted to do so.. Remember these tax cuts were passed through the reconciliation process in the first place and could easily be done so again..If this is not done it is because of a lack of leadership and not because we have no other choice...

[Beetwasher]

1. Errr, How Will The Dems Pass It Through The Senate?

The Repubs can and do fillibuster everything. Yes, the can probably pass it in the House, but what about the Senate?

[Winterblues]

2. You do understand the reconcilation process don't you?

:shrug:

[Beetwasher]

3. Yes I Do, You Apparently Do Not

They cannot use reconciliation for this.

[Winterblues]

4. What does it have to do with filibustering then?

The entire purpose is to get around the filibuster process as they had to do in 2003 when they were first passed. Remember how Cheney was bragging that he had to cast the tie breaking vote to get them passed into law..

[Beetwasher]

5. They Can't Use Reconciliation

n/t

[Winterblues]

7. Why

They were passed in the first place using reconcilation so they could be passed again using the same process. The same logic would apply. I know it has to be budget related but Republicans used it so there is no reason we could not do the same.

[Beetwasher]

9. Not Deficit Reducing Or Neutral

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29

[phleshdef]

47. Yea, it would only be deficit reducing if they were actually voting to raise taxes.

But instead, they are actually voting to keep taxes at a certain level for 98% of the population.

[bigtree]

27. wrong place

[andym]

6. Why not?

Can't they just create a new bill with only the middle class tax cuts and pass it by reconciliation?

[Beetwasher]

8. It's Not Revenue Neutral Or Deficit Reducing, Thus No Reconciliation Is Allowable

n/t

[Winterblues]

10. Explain then how it was used to pass them in the first place..

You can't because it was used....

[Beetwasher]

11. Because They Cooked The Books And Lied About The Effect

Of the tax cut.

Byrd Rule
Further information: Sunset provision: The Budget Act and the Byrd Rule
Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1.if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2.if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3.if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4.if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5.if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
6.if it recommends changes in Social Security.
Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling. The Presiding Officer need not necessarily follow the advice of the Parliamentarian, and the Parliamentarian can be replaced by the Senate Majority Leader.<9>. However, this hasn't been done since 1975.<10> Trent Lott, who was Senate Majority Leader at the time, fired the Senate parliamentarian in 2001 because of unfavorable rulings regarding the use of reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts.

[sabrina 1]

17. Abolishing tax cuts for the wealth IS deficit reducing.

So, how about introducing a bill to do THAT and a separate bill to keep the tax cuts for the middle class?

Pass the 'wealthy' bill through reconciliation, and force the Republicans to filibuster cuts for the middle class.

I have a feeling none of them want to go home and face their constituents when the issue is made crystal clear, they fight for the wealthy, and against the working class.

[Beetwasher]

18. Tax Cuts Are Not, Can't Use Reconciliation To Pass The Middle Class Tax Cuts

n/t

[sabrina 1]

21. You can introduce a bill to increase taxes on the rich. That would

directly affect the budget by approx. $700,000,000. Then pass it by reconciliation.

At the same time introduce a bill to cut taxes on the middle class and challenge Republicans to vote against the working class. And leadership is required to twist the arms of any Democrat who might be thinking of voting with Republicans.

[Beetwasher]

22. Right, That's A Workable Idea, Introduce A Tax Increase!

On what planet?

[sabrina 1]

32. You left out the important part. A tax increase ON THE WEALTHY.

They are not exactly popular these days, especially when it is explained that they have profited while the working class has slid further into poverty. That they are costing the people over 700 billion dollars and we can't afford to keep them anymore. That they have not paid their fair share, and that the generosity of the people towards them for ten years, has not done with they claimed it would do. Not even close. And since handing them over all that money directly affects the budget, it can be passed by reconciliation.

A separate bill that cuts taxes for the working class would also be hugely popular. Let the Republicans vote against it. There is no better way to demonstrate what a mistake it was to vote for them.

[Beetwasher]

33. Tell Me How You Will Get Lieberman, Baucus, Nelson, Landrieu And Bayh To Vote For It

And possibly many others. A tax increase is a tax increase, regardless of who it's on and not many Dems in the Senate would have the balls to vote for an outright tax increase. That's just reality.

The "Liberal Media" would slaughter the Dems for ANY tax increase, regardless of the actual details.

[sabrina 1]

38. Sherrod Brown and others have the balls to do it. Are they not

Democrats? You get the others in line by threatening to remove them from committees or whatever it takes. Bush was able to do it with Republicans. The only reason Landrieu et al act the way they do is because they get away with it with no consequences.

Liebermann is not a Democrat. His should lose all his powers or get with the program. As I said, a bill raising taxes on the rich can pass by reconciliation. As for the pretend Democrats you mentioned, let them know they either act like Democrats or get out of the way.

Enough already with the excuses. People are sick and tired of them. 'It's the Republicans'! 'It's the Blue Dogs'! We don't have enough votes etc. etc.

Well, now we are in the minority again. When Republicans were in the minority we were told how much power they had to stop legislation.

Let's see if Democrats will exercise their power as the minority in the same way. Because if Republicans were so powerful in the minority, then I look forward to seeing Democrats wielding the same powers. Or will we hear 'but we're in the minority'. No one is going to accept that now, since 'minority' status, according to Democrats, didn't stop the Republicans.

[Beetwasher]

39. ahh yes the old threats

lets just take them hunting Cheney style.

[sabrina 1]

40. Threats was the wrong word. Promises is a better word.

You seem to believe that we can do nothing but lie down and let Republicans win every time. I disagree. Either the Democratic party is working for the people and are willing to fight as hard Republicans do for Corporations, or they are on the side of Corporations also.

I don't understand your willingness to give up without even a fight.

[Beetwasher]

41. I Think Threats Are Useless Against Certain People

Who don't give a shit or who are being threatened worse from another direction. And threats was the correct word, that's exactly what you're suggesting, your semantic games notwhithstanding.

But of course, you obviously know the inside workings and dynamics of the Senate better than the actual Senators.

[sabrina 1]

42. Here's what I have learned about the inside workings of the Senate

over the past several years. When Republicans are in the minority, Democrats 'can't get the votes' for anything worthwhile. When Democrats are in the minority, miraculously, the majority rules.

All the excuses about not being able to get things done are lies. Weak lies also. Leadership is what is required to get things done, and a desire to benefit the American people over Corporations.

It appears that having a majority for democrats, is useless, according to the apologists. First they tell us 'we need a majority before we can do anything'. Like hold war criminals accountable eg. Then we get it and the goal posts are moved again 'we need 60 votes and the Blue Dogs are not cooperating'. I remember Bush passing pretty much everything he wanted if not by 60 votes, then by reconciliation or any other way he could get it done. He even managed to get Democrats to help out.

Eg, 12 Senate Democrats voted with Republicans in 2006 for the vile Military Commissions Act, a law btw, that we were promised would be rescinded if only we had a Democratic Majority. But, why did 12 Democrats vote for that attack on Habeas Corpus?

So it seems when both parties want something, they get it. The problem is that what both parties appear to agree on, War, the Patriot Act, the MCI, bailouts for the Wealthy etc, have nothing to do what the people need.

So, explain why there are always Democrats willing to back the Corporate agenda and help get legislation passed on behalf of big business but when it comes to the people, suddenly they are helpless?

Enough with the excuses. If Democrats are as helpless as we are told, which I do NOT believe, then we need another party to represent the American people that is willing to fight rather than collaborate over and over again.

[Beetwasher]

44. Frankly, I Don't Care What You Think You've Learned

It's obvious you're still ignorant about what it takes to actually get things accomplished and don't have a clue about politics. Yes, if everyone just listened to your sniping from the peanut gallery why everything would be just grand! Why, we'd live in liberal utopian paradise!

[sabrina 1]

45. What does it take to get 12 Democrats to vote for an

anti-constitutional bill that even the SC could not defend? Not much, apparently, and that is a FACT.

Is liberal a bad word to you btw? Interesting!

But back to some facts. Unlike some who are now claiming the 'liberal' label, I am far too conservative on some issues to consider myself a 'liberal'. Sorry to have to correct your online political analysis of someone you don't know anything about.

However, aside from those few issues, I would vote for Liberals, REAL liberals any day over DLCers.

The truth is Democrats don't fight because they AGREE with the right. And that is what I have learned since we finally gave them a majority, removing all their former excuses about being in the minority. Not there ever was an excuse for a Democrat like Hillary Clinton eg, or John Edwards, or Gephardt et al to vote for the war in Iraq, or the Patriot Act. Why did they do that? Because they agreed with it. Those who didn't, did not vote for it.

Stop trying to excuse them. People are not stupid and we've had four years of Democratic majority to actually see the reality of what we are faced with.

You can claim 'not enough votes' all you want. What will you claim now, if that is a fact. I mean Republicans were in the minority then and still got what they wanted, according to you, which is why we couldn't.

So now the shoe is on the other foot, let's how many Democrats STILL vote with Republicans, as they always have. Explain why any Democrat should ever cross the aisle and vote for some of the horrific Republican legislation that they have. Like Obama, voting for the FISA bill. Remember that?

We the people have to rethink our options now. But one thing we know, helping Dems get a majority was not enough. There are Dems who need to be removed from office and that will be a good place to start.

[Beetwasher]

46. You Tell Me What It Takes, Apparently Dems Need To Make More Threats

Right? I don't care if you're Liberal, Conservative or Clown, it's obvious you're incredibly naive, at best, about politics if you think it would be any way possible to pass a TAX INCREASE (even if it's only on the wealthy). Congress can't even get their shit together to allow the tax cuts over 250k to expire. But somehow, magically, they will be able to pass a tax INCREASE. It's a bizarre in it's disconnect.

[sabrina 1]

49. They can't 'get their shit together' because most of them are under

the control of Corporate America. And the American people have not made themselves heard. Acceptance of this state of affairs is what is naive. It is destroying this country and you have no solutions except to accept 'the way things are'. Well, the way things are is not working for the American people, unless you find nothing wrong with millions losing their jobs, their homes and even their lives for lack of proper health care coverage. War crimes in our name and the protection of war criminals by Democrats. Not to mention the growing police state we are living in.

Tell you what, I'd rather be naive as you put it, and try to find solutions, starting with letting these morons we elected know that the game is over. Their cocktail party days will end, unless they start standing up and fighting for the PEOPLE.

There is NOTHING stopping Democrats from announcing to the public that they intend to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and explaining the cost of those cuts, and pay off was a decrease in the standard of living of the middle class, a loss of jobs and the worst economy we've seen in some of our lifetimes. Let the public decide.

I have more faith in the American people than you have. You are simply making excuses because you and I, and everyone else knows that this President is going to cave in once again to Republicans.

You get the government you deserve. Quite frankly I think we deserve better.

[Beetwasher]

51. No Shit, Yeah, Many Senators Are Under Corporate Control, So HOW Would YOU Get Them To Vote For A

TAX INCREASE? That's the subject we're discussing. You know, the one YOU brought up? That we should have a TAX INCREASE on the wealthy and somehow this is a workable idea?

"You can introduce a bill to increase taxes on the rich."

Remember that? You wrote it. It's ridiculous. That's what we're discussing. How ridiculous the idea is that somehow, with THIS senate, you could pass a tax increase.

HOW do you suggest we do it? Should we trust the media to educate the public and report the policy properly? On what planet?

So Obama should give a speech about it? How should he make sure his words aren't spun into complete incomprehensibility to the majority of the public? What magic should he use to accomplish this?

[sabrina 1]

52. It's ridiculous to raise taxes on the wealthy?

How you do it is to introduce a bill and let Republicans stand up for the rich once again, while they vote against tax cuts for the middle class. And while they're busy fighting over that bill, let the Bush tax cuts expire. Keep them busy, fighting for the wealthy. That's what they do best.

As Chris Matthews said to Jim Webb last night 'why won't you guys call their bluff'? Yes, why won't they. What are they afraid of? Public sentiment right now is not on the side of Corporate America.

Do I trust the media? No, but I don't have your attitude that the public is too stupid not to figure things out for themselves. They figured it out without any help from the media regarding the Bailing out Wall St.

You exhibit the problem that has cowed Democrats even in the majority for so long. Fear of what 'people might say'. So no action is better than having Republicans say nasty things about us? Republicans know this and play on it.

We see the results of that cowardice.

However, it looks like maybe Democrats ARE getting a spine after all. And having forced a vote this week, Republicans screaming and whining all over tv don't look too great. It also forces the media to ask them WHY they don't support it. It's called strategy. Now let them introduce a bill to stop giving tax breaks to people who take American jobs out of the country.

But as I said, the WH is about to cave on the Bush tax cuts, and we will hear nothing but excuses as to why. That is what you are doing, defending them in advance. Without even putting up a fight. All the president has to do is repeat what he already said maybe in a slightly different way 'we cannot afford to keep giving these monetary gifts to the wealthy, who have benefited so much for so long, adding billions to the deficit'.

Chris Matthews, last night showed Obama how to do it, when he questioned a Republican strategist about why he 'wants to add billions to the deficit, while claiming they want to reduce it'. He had him squirming because with just a few questions, they are exposed for the liars they are. I don't often credit Matthews with much, but last night he wiped the floor with the arguments Republicans are making. It can be done, but the will to do it is missing in this WH.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. You could extend the middle class cuts by 10 years, and let the top 2% cuts expire

That sounds as though that would work.

[Beetwasher]

29. You've Wrangled The Votes For That?

Pray tell.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Limiting it to 10 years means reconciliation could be used

as far as I can see - which is how the Bush tax cuts got through.

OK, if there are Democrats who'd oppose it, it'd be blocked. But it wouldn't need Republican votes.

[Beetwasher]

31. Didn't Say You'd Need Repub Votes, How About Lieberman

Landrieu, Baucus, Nelson, Bayh...

As far as you or anyone knows a plan like this may be being discussed or considered, but the problem is the same problem, getting the votes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Well, a Republican filibuster was your objection in #1

and this sub-thread developed with you saying reconciliation was impossible. And the thread title is about 'Democrats', not 'Democrats excluding the right wing of the party'.

[Beetwasher]

37. Reconciliation IS impossible At This Time

You introduced other factors that MAY make reconciliation possible at some point in the future. But the tax cuts cannot be a part of reconciliation as proposed in the OP. YOU added stuff first in order to maybe make it possible in reconciliation. Not me.

[phleshdef]

48. Its not a vote to abolish tax cuts. Its a vote to extend part of them.

There is no vote to abolish anything. Existing laws mandate the tax increases all ready. This vote would be to continue using the same tax rate for the "bottom" 98%. If anything, that increases the deficit, not by a whole lot compared to extending the rates for the other 2%, but still an increase regardless.

[Better Believe It]

13. That's easy! Make the Republicans engage in a real filibuster on the Senate floor!

Senate Democrats have the power to do that under current Senate rules. They are not required to accept a Republican notice of a technical "procedual filibuster" and they can stop the "two-track" procedure which permits that Senate to debate other legislation during a procedural filibuster.

Last year Senator Reid forced Republican Senators to engage in a traditional Senate filibuster.

It collapsed in 24 hours!

And Senate Democrats can always use the Constitutional Option to prevent any kind of Republican filibuster.

Republican Senator were not afraid to use that power in 2005. The mere Republican threat to use the Constitutional Option had Democrats surrending their right to filibuster against Bush's right-wing Supreme Court nominations.

No more lame excuses to justify Democratic surrenders to Republicans please!

Fight them!

Challenge them!

Use the power voters gave Democrats to run the Senate.

If Democratic congressional leaders are unwilling to do that, what good are they?

[sharp_stick]

14. When did Reid force a traditional filibuster last year? n/t

[Beetwasher]

15. Reid Never "Forced A Traditional Fillibuster", Source This Claim

And the "constitutional option" can only be used at the beginning of new session.

Dems do NOT have the power to force a traditional fillibuster anymore. It doesn't work that way. If you think they do, source that claim. I will not take your word for it.

[Better Believe It]

16. It happened this past March. Did you forget about it? Here ya go!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9665634

And if you need more information from credible sources I'd be pleased to provide it.

[Beetwasher]

19. So IOW, It Didn't Happen According To Your "Source" (Which Is You)

Did you bother to read the links in your own post? It didn't happen! :rofl:

[Better Believe It]

23. What in this article did you not understand? Which words have confused you?

Perhaps it was the term "political victory"?

Dick Durbin: Let GOP filibuster
By MANU RAJU
March 4, 2010

Senate Democrats may be ready to actually make Republicans carry out filibusters.

Basking in their political victory over Sen. Jim Bunning’s (R-Ky.) blockade of an extension of unemployment insurance, Democrats say that they may force Republicans to talk endlessly on the floor in the months leading up to November’s elections.

For months, House Democrats — and liberal activists — have implored Senate Democrats to let filibusters unfold over hours on the Senate floor, rather than try disposing of Senate business with cloture votes and unanimous consent requests.

Asked Thursday why Senate Democrats don’t force Republicans to carry out filibusters, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, “We may.”

“When we think the Republicans are being unreasonable — we’re going to consider our options under the rules of the Senate, I think there is a feeling after what we went through with Sen. Bunning’s blockage and unemployment benefits that we need to stand up more and make it clear what this obstruction costs,” Durbin said.

In the past, Democrats have hesitated to employ the tactic, fearing that it would serve only to bottle up the agenda further and create even worse perceptions of the Democratic-led Congress. Instead, when Republicans have threatened to filibuster, Democrats pull the legislation from the floor if they lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Read the full article at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33920.html

[Beetwasher]

26. How Do You Define "May"? Show Me Your Source That They Did It

You can't cuz they never did it. Nobody actually fillibustered on the floor, despite your lame attempts to pretend otherwise.

[BzaDem]

50. Exactly. The poster is conflating objecting to a unanimous consent request as an actual filibuster.

[gratuitous]

12. Yeah, but that wouldn't be all bipartisany

And it would make David Broder cry. So forget that.

Same goes for any proposal to de-couple the tax cuts, and pass a package continuing lower rates for income below $250,000, and then holding a separate vote on continuing lower rates for income above $250,000. Not bipartisan at all!

[bvar22]

20. They "could"....

...if they wanted to.

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Jeffersons Ghost]

24. they could but I suspect they won't...

The wealthy will continue to enjoy their tax breaks.

[bigtree]

28. I don't think they can do it in reconciliation, if that's what you're thinking.

. . . look into this a bit more, please. I don't believe your premise and header is correct. I've been down this road before . . .

[cali]

34. absolute baloney.

I'm constantly amazed by how little some here know about how the House and Senate work.

[BzaDem]

35. No budget was passed. Cam't use reconciliation if no budget passed. n/t

[craigmatic]

43. If I was Obama I'd let them expire out of spite and just fight the repubs for the next 2 years.